This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2016-01-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Figueroa v. People,[15] we ruled that the failure to assail jurisdiction during trial is not sufficient for estoppel by laches to apply. When lack of jurisdiction is raised before the appellate court, no considerable length of time had elapsed for laches to apply.[16] Laches refers to the "negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable length of time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it."[17] | |||||
|
2014-04-02 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| "Jurisdiction is the power with which courts are invested for administering justice; that is, for hearing and deciding cases. In order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties."[47] | |||||
|
2014-03-10 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| With respect to the belated filing of the motion, the RTC, citing Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Kemper Insurance Company,[6] held that a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction may be filed at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. The dispositive portion of the assailed Order reads: | |||||
|
2014-02-12 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It has been repeatedly emphasized that in the case of natural persons, the certification against forum shopping must be signed by the principal parties themselves and not by the attorney.[23] The purpose of the rule rests mainly on practical sensibility. As explained in Clavecilla v. Quitain:[24] | |||||
|
2013-07-03 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Respondent cites this Court's ruling in PAL v. FASAP,[19] where we held that only individuals vested with authority by a valid board resolution may sign a certificate of non-forum shopping on behalf of a corporation. The petition is subject to dismissal if a certification was submitted unaccompanied by proof of the signatory's authority.[20] In a number of cases, however, we have recognized exceptions to this rule. Cagayan Valley Drug Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[21] provides: In a slew of cases, however, we have recognized the authority of some corporate officers to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping. In Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. CA, we recognized the authority of a general manager or acting general manager to sign the verification and certificate against forum shopping; in Pfizer v. Galan, we upheld the validity of a verification signed by an "employment specialist" who had not even presented any proof of her authority to represent the company; in Novelty Philippines, Inc., v. CA, we ruled that a personnel officer who signed the petition but did not attach the authority from the company is authorized to sign the verification and non-forum shopping certificate; and in Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. WMC Resources International Pty. Ltd. (Lepanto), we ruled that the Chairperson of the Board and President of the Company can sign the verification and certificate against non-forum shopping even without the submission of the board's authorization. | |||||
|
2012-11-14 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if we are to expect fair results therefrom, and utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[20] Time and again, this Court has strictly enforced the requirement of verification and certification of non-forum shopping under the Rules of Court.[21] Verification is required to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not merely speculative.[22] The attestation on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party executing the same, and the lone signing petitioner cannot be presumed to have personal knowledge of the filing or non-filing by his co-petitioners of any action or claim the same as similar to the current petition.[23] | |||||
|
2012-09-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| What then, is the effect of a complaint filed by one who has not proven his authority to represent a plaintiff in filing an action? In Tamondong v. Court of Appeals,[6] the Court categorically stated that "[i]f a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff [by one] who is not authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect. Hence, the court should dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff."[7] This ruling was reiterated in Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Kemper Insurance Company,[8] where the Court went on to say that "[i]n order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, and to be bound by a decision, a party should first be subjected to the court's jurisdiction. Clearly, since no valid complaint was ever filed with the [MeTC], the same did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of respondent [plaintiff before the lower court]."[9] | |||||